DOCSLIB.ORG

Is BC a Net Power Importer Or Exporter?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Is BC a Net Power Importer Or Exporter? Is BC a Net Power Importer or Exporter? Amy Sopinka and G. Cornelis van Kooten University of Victoria Introduction On April 28, 2010, the province of British Columbia introduced the Clean Energy Act. While the purpose of the Act has many repercussions for the provincial electricity sector, one of its primary objectives is to create and promote opportunities for energy exports. As the government’s background document to the Clean Energy Act states: “in addition to supplying domestic needs [the province will] work in partnership with renewable power producers to actively seek opportunities to sell clean, reliable electricity to neighbours in Canada and the U.S.” (Government of British Columbia 2010, p.1). Yet, substantial controversy appears to surround the viability of British Columbia’s electricity system. One side argues that BC already has abundant energy resources and uses them to generate sales in lucrative adjacent markets. The other side says energy demand in BC is growing so quickly that it has already outpaced the province’s ability to meet it, with the province forced to purchase electricity from adjacent markets. Which of these stories is true? The short answer is both and neither. The question of whether British Columbia is a net exporter or net importer of electricity is misleading because any answer fails to tell the full story. It is necessary to distinguish between revenues and volumes when assessing whether the province is a net exporter or net importer. In this regard, one also needs to distinguish between the capacity to generate electricity and actual power production. British Columbia’s Electricity Infrastructure BC Hydro is the single largest entity in BC’s electricity sector and the third largest utility in Canada. The crown‐owned corporation serves 94% of the province’s population. BC Hydro’s franchise area is the entire province of British Columbia, but excludes the area serviced by FortisBC, which is a regulated public utility that operates in the province. FortisBC’s transmission system connects with BC Hydro to form an integrated provincial electricity grid. 1 But FortisBC is not the only player in the provincial system. Nelson Hydro operates generation, transmission and distribution facilities for the City of Nelson. The cities of New Westminster, Grand Forks, Kelowna, Penticton, as well as Summerland Power and Hemlock Valley Utilities, distribute power to their customers after purchasing electricity from BC Hydro or FortisBC. In addition to publicly‐owned generation facilities, independent power projects (IPP) have been and are being built and operated by private firms. Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. is an international mining corporation operating in British Columbia that owns the Waneta Dam near Trail on the Pend d'Oreille River, just before it enters the Columbia River. The dam was completed in 1954 to provide power to the company’s smelter and has a generating capacity of 450 MW; there is a (2009) proposal to expand the Waneta’s generating capacity by 335 MW.1 Rio Tinto Alcan owns the Kemano hydroelectric facility on the Nechako River, a tributary of the Fraser River, and the accompanying transmission assets connect the company’s aluminum smelter at Kitimat to BC Hydro’s grid. The Kenney dam was completed in 1954 and has a generating capacity of 896 MW. BC Hydro manages the largest share of the provincial capacity, although generation by independent power producers (IPPs) is growing in importance. British Columbia is able to sell and purchase power in adjacent markets due to interconnections with Alberta and the United States. BC's grid is linked to Alberta via two 138 kV lines and one 500 kV line. Two 500 kV lines and two 230 kV lines connect BC to the U.S. Complicating the supply picture are the flows of ‘Treaty power’ that were negotiated through the Columbia River and Skagit Valley Treaties, plus the Libby Coordination agreement. The Columbia River Treaty The Canadian side of the Columbia River originates in British Columbia, Montana and Idaho, and, after leaving Canada, flows through Washington and Oregon into the Pacific Ocean. The Columbia River Treaty was negotiated between Canada and the U.S. during the period 1 See http://www.columbiapower.org/projects/wanetaexpansion.asp (viewed June 8, 2010). Teck sold one‐third of its interest in the Waneta dam to BC Hydro for $850 million as of March 5, 2010. This represents Teck’s historical surplus generation that was sold to BC Hydro. Teck also owns 15 km of transmission line connecting its BC operations to the United States. 2 following major flooding on the Columbia River in the U.S. in 1948; the Treaty was signed in 1961 and ratified by Canada in 1964.2 It resulted in the construction of the Duncan (1967), Hugh Keenleyside (1968) and Mica (1973) dams in BC and the Libby Dam (1975) in Montana on the Kootenay River – a tributary that accounts for 20% of the water in the to the Columbia River leaving Canada. The purpose of the Treaty was primarily flood control, but the operation of the Canadian dams increased power generation in downstream dams, with half of this additional electricity and half of the power output from Libby Dam allocated to BC. As part of the Treaty, a Pacific Northwest‐Southwest intertie was also built to transfer BC’s share of this electricity to California. The Treaty obliges BC to operate the Mica, Arrow and Duncan dams for the purpose of flood control benefitting the U.S.; thus, BC cannot operate its reservoirs in a way that would adversely affect the stream flow of the Columbia River in the U.S. In 1977, BC Hydro installed a powerhouse at the Mica dam with a capacity of 1792 MW – the only Treaty dam to produce power within a few years of construction. In 2003, a powerhouse with a capacity of 185 MW was built at the Keenleyside Dam. Further, although not mentioned in the Columbia River Treaty, the developments on the Columbia River facilitated construction of the Kootenay Canal Plant (1975) and Revelstoke Dam (1984), located between the Keenleyside and Mica dams just north of the town of Revelstoke. After recent upgrades, the Kootenay Canal Plant has a generating capacity of 580 MW, while the Revelstoke Dam has a generating capacity of 2480 MW (after the addition of another 500 MW unit in 2010). Libby Coordination Agreement The Libby Coordination Agreement was negotiated in 2000 resolving a dispute between 2 The federal government negotiated the Treaty on behalf of the province of British Columbia, which assigned the task of constructing and operating the Treaty dams to BC Hydro and the power generated in the U.S. that is allocated to BC to BC Hydro’s marketing subsidiary, Powerex. A history of the Columbia River Treaty, including the controversies and its costs and benefits is available at (viewed June 7, 2010): http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/EAED/EPB/Documents/History%20ofColumbiaRiverNov139web).pdf. 3 BC Hydro and the Bonneville Power Authority (BPA)/US Army Corps of Engineers.3 The agreement allows the Corps of Engineers and BPA to spill water for in‐stream purposes, namely, to protect the endangered Kootenai sturgeon. This water is not used to generate electricity, thereby reducing the overall power generated in the system and reducing the power that would otherwise accrue to BC. The agreement enables spilling of water for in‐stream purposes without reducing the power benefits that British Columbia is entitled to under the Columbia River Treaty. Skagit Valley Treaty The Skagit Valley Treaty (1982) came about because Seattle wished to raise the height of the Ross Dam on the Upper Skagit River in Washington, which would raise the level of Ross Lake. Ross Lake straddles the international boundary and Canada opposed raising the lake level, because this would reduce the generating capacity of BC’s Seven Mile Dam (1979), which is a run‐of‐river facility. The agreement requires that BC Hydro deliver the equivalent of 35.4 MW of capacity to the Seattle load centre at prices to be determined through negotiation. Generating Capacity vs. Power Production To determine whether BC is a net exporter or importer of electricity, it is important to distinguish between generated power (energy) and generating capacity. Generating capacity refers to the full‐load continuous rating of a generator, also known as the nameplate rating or maximum continuous rating (MCR). Thermal generators are able to provide power consistently near to their MCR because of the constant and unvarying fuel supply. The electricity that is generated from renewable energy technologies depends on the availability of the fuel source, whether it is water, wind or sun. Hydroelectric units are reliant upon sufficient water inflows and, even where they are supported by reservoir infrastructure, reservoir levels (also known as 3 The Bonneville Power Administration is a U.S federal energy agency in the Pacific Northwest. BPA markets wholesale electrical power from 31 federal hydro projects in the Columbia River Basin, a non‐ federal nuclear plant and several other non‐federal power plants. The dams are operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. BPA also operates and maintains about three quarters of the high‐voltage transmission lines in its service territory of Idaho, Oregon, Washington, western Montana and parts of eastern Montana, California, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming. 4 elevations). Treaty and in‐stream environmental considerations, such as flood control and fish habitat, affect the dam owner’s ability independently to manage these elevations. Thus, the power output from hydroelectric generators may vary significantly from their capacity values in any given hour, day, month, season and/or year.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kootenay System Operations
    Columbia River Treaty Review – Technical Studies Appendix C Kootenay System Operations Operation of the Kootenay River system is complicated as it is administered by several different jurisdictions and the hydroelectric facilities are owned by different agencies/companies. As shown in Figure 1, the Kootenay River originates in the Rocky Mountains not far from Field, BC. The river flows south, within a few km of the source of the Columbia River at Canal Flats, and then continues south into Koocanusa Reservoir, formed behind Libby Dam in Montana, United States. From Libby, the Kootenay River turns west and north, and re-enters British Columbia near the community of Creston, flowing into the south arm of Kootenay Lake. In the northern part of the Kootenay basin, the Duncan River is joined by the Lardeau River just downstream from Duncan Dam, and then flows into the north arm of Kootenay Lake. Water from the north and south arms of Kootenay Lake then flows through the west arm of the lake and past the Corra Linn Dam near Nelson (as well as other dams) en route to the Columbia–Kootenay confluence at Castlegar. The components of this system and various agreements/orders that regulate flows are described in this Appendix. November 29, 2013 1 Columbia River Treaty Review – Technical Studies Figure 1: Kootenay and Columbia Region November 29, 2013 2 Columbia River Treaty Review – Technical Studies 1.0 Coordination of Libby Operations Background Under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty, Canada permitted the U.S. to build the Libby Dam on the Kootenai River (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • BCUC IR1 Response
    Diane Roy FortisBC Vice President, Regulatory Affairs 16705 Fraser Highway Surrey, B.C. V4N 0E8 Gas Regulatory Affairs Correspondence Tel: (604)576-7349 Email: [email protected] Cell: (604) 908-2790 Fax: (604) 576-7074 Electric Regulatory Affairs Correspondence www.fortisbc.com Email: [email protected] October 1, 2020 British Columbia Utilities Commission Suite 410, 900 Howe Street Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2N3 Attention: Ms. Marija Tresoglavic, Acting Commission Secretary Dear Ms. Tresoglavic: Re: FortisBC Inc. (FBC) Project No. 1599119 Annual Review for 2020 and 2021 Rates (Application) Response to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) Information Request (IR) No. 1 On August 19, 2020, FBC filed the Application referenced above. In accordance with BCUC Order G-211-20 setting out the Regulatory Timetable for the review of the Application, FBC respectfully submits the attached response to BCUC IR No. 1. If further information is required, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, FORTISBC INC. Original signed: Diane Roy Attachments cc (email only): Registered Parties FortisBC Inc. (FBC or the Company) Submission Date: Annual Reivew for 2020 and 2021 Rates ~ Project No. 1599119 (Application) October 1, 2020 Response to British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) Information Request (IR) Page 1 No. 1 1 Table of Contents Page no. 2 A. LOAD FORECAST AND REVENUE AT EXISTING RATES ................................................. 2 3 B. OTHER REVENUE .............................................................................................................28
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Management's Discussion and Analysis
    2010 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS March 4, 2011 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) is designed to provide the reader with a greater understanding of the Company’s business, the Company’s business strategy and performance, the Company’s expectations of the future, and how the Company manages risk and capital resources. It is intended to enhance the understanding of the audited annual consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes, and should therefore be read in conjunction with these documents, and should also be read together with the text below on forward-looking statements. Reference in this MD&A to the “Company” or to “SNC-Lavalin” means, as the context may require, SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. and all or some of its subsidiaries or joint ventures, or SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. or one or more of its subsidiaries or joint ventures. Unless otherwise indicated, all financial information presented in this MD&A, including tabular amounts, is in Canadian dollars, and prepared in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS Statements made in this MD&A that describe the Company’s or management’s budgets, estimates, expectations, forecasts, objectives, predictions or projections of the future may be “forward-looking statements”, which can be identifi ed by the use of the conditional or forward-looking terminology such as “anticipates”, “believes”, “estimates”, “expects”, “may”, “plans”, “projects”, “should”, “will”, or the negative thereof or other variations thereon. The Company cautions that, by their nature, forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, and that its actual actions and/or results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements, or could affect the extent to which a particular projection materializes.
    [Show full text]
  • SOUTH INTERIOR SUBSYSTEM Supersedes SOO 7T-33 Issued 13 October 2020
    BC HYDRO T&D SYSTEM OPERATIONS SYSTEM OPERATING ORDER 7T-33 SOUTH INTERIOR SUBSYSTEM Supersedes SOO 7T-33 issued 13 October 2020 Effective Date: 09 March 2021 Expiry Year: 2025 Original signed by: APPROVED BY: Bob Cielen, Operations Planning Manager, T&D System Operations Requires same day posting on bchydro.com and on BCRC Extranet upon release. Requires same day MRS conveyance notification upon posting Denotes Revision SOO 7T-33 Effective Date: 09 March 2021 Page 2 of 32 SOUTH INTERIOR SUBSYSTEM INDEX 1.0 GENERAL .............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.0 RESPONSIBILITIES .............................................................................................................................. 6 3.0 SYSTEM VOLTAGE CONTROL ........................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Nominal Voltage .............................................................................................................................. 7 3.2 SF6 Switchgear Voltage Ratings ..................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Overvoltage Protection .................................................................................................................... 7 3.4 MCA & REV RMR for Voltage Control ............................................................................................ 7 4.0 SERIES CAPACITORS OPERATIONS ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Treaty History and 2014/2024 Review
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration Columbia River Treaty History and 2014/2024 Review 1 he Columbia River Treaty History of the Treaty T between the United States and The Columbia River, the fourth largest river on the continent as measured by average annual fl ow, Canada has served as a model of generates more power than any other river in North America. While its headwaters originate in British international cooperation since 1964, Columbia, only about 15 percent of the 259,500 square miles of the Columbia River Basin is actually bringing signifi cant fl ood control and located in Canada. Yet the Canadian waters account for about 38 percent of the average annual volume, power generation benefi ts to both and up to 50 percent of the peak fl ood waters, that fl ow by The Dalles Dam on the Columbia River countries. Either Canada or the United between Oregon and Washington. In the 1940s, offi cials from the United States and States can terminate most of the Canada began a long process to seek a joint solution to the fl ooding caused by the unregulated Columbia provisions of the Treaty any time on or River and to the postwar demand for greater energy resources. That effort culminated in the Columbia River after Sept.16, 2024, with a minimum Treaty, an international agreement between Canada and the United States for the cooperative development 10 years’ written advance notice. The of water resources regulation in the upper Columbia River U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • The Columbia Basin Tribes and First Nations Jointly Developed This Paper To
    Agenda Item E.2 Attachment 1 (Electronic Only) March 2021 a | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY he Columbia Basin tribes and First Nations jointly developed this paper to Tinform the U.S. and Canadian Entities, federal governments, and other re- gional sovereigns and stakeholders on how anadromous salmon and resident fish can be reintroduced into the upper Columbia River Basin. Reintroduction and res- toration of fish passage could be achieved through a variety of mechanisms, includ- ing the current effort to modernize the Columbia River Treaty (Treaty). Restoring fish passage and reintroducing anadromous fish should be investigated and imple- mented as a key element of integrating ecosystem-based function into the Treaty. Anadromous fish reintroduction is critical to restoring native peoples’ cultural, harvest, spiritual values, and First Foods taken through bilateral river development for power and flood risk management. Reintroduction is also an important facet of ecosystem adaptation to climate change as updated research indicates that only the Canadian portion of the basin may be snowmelt-dominated in the future, making it a critical refugium for fish as the Columbia River warms over time. This transboundary reintroduction proposal focuses on adult and juvenile fish pas- sage at Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams in the U.S. and at Hugh Keenleyside, Brilliant, Waneta and Seven Mile dams in Canada. Reintroduction would occur incrementally, beginning with a series of preliminary planning, research, and ex- perimental pilot studies designed to inform subsequent reintroduction and passage strategies. Long-term elements of salmon reintroduction would be adaptable and include permanent passage facilities, complemented by habitat improvement, ar- tificial propagation, monitoring, and evaluation.
    [Show full text]
  • Dams and Hydroelectricity in the Columbia
    COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: DAMS AND HYDROELECTRICITY The power of falling water can be converted to hydroelectricity A Powerful River Major mountain ranges and large volumes of river flows into the Pacific—make the Columbia precipitation are the foundation for the Columbia one of the most powerful rivers in North America. River Basin. The large volumes of annual runoff, The entire Columbia River on both sides of combined with changes in elevation—from the the border is one of the most hydroelectrically river’s headwaters at Canal Flats in BC’s Rocky developed river systems in the world, with more Mountain Trench, to Astoria, Oregon, where the than 470 dams on the main stem and tributaries. Two Countries: One River Changing Water Levels Most dams on the Columbia River system were built between Deciding how to release and store water in the Canadian the 1940s and 1980s. They are part of a coordinated water Columbia River system is a complex process. Decision-makers management system guided by the 1964 Columbia River Treaty must balance obligations under the CRT (flood control and (CRT) between Canada and the United States. The CRT: power generation) with regional and provincial concerns such as ecosystems, recreation and cultural values. 1. coordinates flood control 2. optimizes hydroelectricity generation on both sides of the STORING AND RELEASING WATER border. The ability to store water in reservoirs behind dams means water can be released when it’s needed for fisheries, flood control, hydroelectricity, irrigation, recreation and transportation. Managing the River Releasing water to meet these needs influences water levels throughout the year and explains why water levels The Columbia River system includes creeks, glaciers, lakes, change frequently.
    [Show full text]
  • Brilliant Headpond Stewardship Initiative Draft
    DRAFT SCOPING STUDY WORKING COPY FOR VIEWING PURPOSES BRILLIANT ONLY HEADPOND STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE KATARINA HARTWIG HEATHER LESCHIED MAY 2017 Scoping Study: Brilliant Headpond Stewardship Initiative Katarina Hartwig, Heather Leschied | May 2017 Design and Layout: Mandi McRobbie Cover Photo: Douglas Noblet, WildAir Photography ©2017 Living Lakes Canada All rights reserved. Permission is granted to reproduce all or part of this publication for non-commercial purposes, as long as you cite the source Living Lakes Canada Box 691 Invermere, BC V0A 1K0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Brilliant Headpond Stewardship Initiative Scoping Study is intended to be the first phase of a stewardship strategy for the Brilliant Headpond Reservoir. The Scoping Study is guided by the Brilliant Headpond Stewardship Initiative Steering Committee, which includes leaders from the Brilliant Headpond communities of Tarrys, Thrums, Glade, Shoreacres, and South Slocan, representatives of the Ktunaxa First Nation and Okanagan Nation Alliance, and Regional District of Central Kootenay (RDCK) Area I Director, Andy Davidoff, and RDCK Area H Director, Walter Popoff. The Brilliant Headpond Reservoir (“BHPR”) was created by the damming of the Kootenay River at the Brilliant Canyon for the completion of the West Kootenay Power Corps. Brilliant Dam hydroelectric project completed in 1944. The BHPR area extends from Columbia Power Corporation’s (current owner) Brilliant Dam and Brilliant Expansion Project (2007) upstream to the Slocan Pool area just below BC Hydro’s Kootenay Canal (1975) and FortisBC’s South Slocan (1928) dams. FortisBC owns and operates the four dams on the Lower Kootenay, upstream of Brilliant Dam, and FortisBC operates Brilliant Dam and Brilliant Expansion facilities on behalf of Columbia Power Corporation.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Basin Plan
    FOR REFERENCE ONLY This version is now archived. Updated 2019 Columbia Region Action Plans available at: fwcp.ca/region/columbia-region Photo credit: Larry Halverson COLUMBIA BASIN PLAN June 2012 Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program ........................................................................ 1 Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Principles .................................................................................................................................. 2 Partners .................................................................................................................................... 2 Policy Context ........................................................................................................................... 2 Program Delivery ...................................................................................................................... 4 Project Investment Criteria ...................................................................................................... 4 2. The Columbia River Basin .................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Setting .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Revelstoke Generating Station Unit 6 Project Factsheet-December 2018
    Revelstoke Generating Station Unit 6 Project Factsheet-December 2018 This project would install a sixth generating unit into an empty four units were installed when the facility was constructed. bay at Revelstoke Generating Station. Revelstoke Unit 6 would The fifth generating unit was recently added and began add approximately 500 megawatts of capacity to our system service in 2010. and provide a significant amount of electricity when our Revelstoke Generating Station produces, on average, about customers need it most – during dark cold winter days 7,817 gigawatt hours or roughly 15 per cent of the electricity when furnaces, appliances and lights are all in use. BC Hydro generates each year. With the five generating units, Revelstoke Generating Station has a combined capacity of REVELSTOKE DAM AND GENERATING STATION 2,480 megawatts. Electricity generated by the plant is Revelstoke Dam and Generating Station are located on the delivered to the grid by two parallel 500 kilovolt transmission Columbia River, 5 kilometers upstream from the City of lines that run from Revelstoke Generating Station to the Revelstoke. The facilities are part of our Columbia system Ashton Creek substation near Kamloops. with Revelstoke Reservoir and Mica Dam located upstream and the Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam and Arrow Lakes Reservoir downstream. The Revelstoke Generating Station, completed in 1984, was designed to hold six generating units but only Project Timing We do not have a timeline for construction. Revelstoke 6 is an important contingency project in case demand grows faster than we expect. 1 Revelstoke Revelstoke Dam Reservoir Hwy 23 BRITISH COLUMBIA Hwy 1 Hwy 1 Hwy 23 Revelstoke Revelstoke Generating Station PROJECT BENEFITS AND OPPORTUNITIES The work to install the sixth generating unit at Revelstoke Generating Station would be very similar to the Revelstoke ○ Jobs .
    [Show full text]
  • BC Hydro Climate Change Assessment Report 2012
    POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON BC HYDRO’S WATER RESOURCES Georg Jost: Ph.D., Senior Hydrologic Modeller, BC Hydro Frank Weber; M.Sc., P. Geo., Lead, Runoff Forecasting, BC Hydro 1 EXecutiVE Summary Global climate change is upon us. Both natural cycles and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions influence climate in British Columbia and the river flows that supply the vast majority of power that BC Hydro generates. BC Hydro’s climate action strategy addresses both the mitigation of climate change through reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and adaptation to climate change by understanding the risks and magnitude of potential climatic changes to our business today and in the future. As part of its climate change adaptation strategy, BC Hydro has undertaken internal studies and worked with some of the world’s leading scientists in climatology, glaciology, and hydrology to determine how climate change affects water supply and the seasonal timing of reservoir inflows, and what we can expect in the future. While many questions remain unanswered, some trends are evident, which we will explore in this document. 2 IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON BC HYDRO-MANAGED WATER RESOURCES W HAT we haVE seen so far » Over the last century, all regions of British Columbia »F all and winter inflows have shown an increase in became warmer by an average of about 1.2°C. almost all regions, and there is weaker evidence »A nnual precipitation in British Columbia increased by for a modest decline in late-summer flows for those about 20 per cent over the last century (across Canada basins driven primarily by melt of glacial ice and/or the increases ranged from 5 to 35 per cent).
    [Show full text]
  • Kootenay System Overview
    Kootenay System Overview Heather Matthews March 2016 Kootenay System Storage - Koocanusa Reservoir - Duncan Reservoir - Kootenay Lake 2 Dams • Libby Dam (USACE) • Duncan Dam (BC Hydro) • Kootenay Canal Plant (BC Hydro) • River Plants (Fortis) • Corra Linn • Upper Bonnington / [City of Nelson] • Lower Bonnington • South Slocan • Brilliant & Expansion (CPC) 3 River Plants 4 Agreements & Regulatory • Columbia River Treaty • Duncan Reservoir • Koocanusa Reservoir • International Joint Commission • Kootenay Lake • BC Water Licenses • Storage and diversion for power purposes • Canal Plant Agreement • Operate like one owner 5 Libby and the Treaty Columbia River Treaty: o Provide the US with the option to build Libby Dam o Koocanusa reservoir floods 42 miles into Canada o Libby Dam provides flood and power benefits for Canada. o Power generated at Libby belongs to the US o Power benefits downstream in Canada on the Kootenay river stay in Canada o Coordination on Libby operation continues even if Treaty is terminated. o Canada can request a change in operation. If it is not to the US disadvantage the US shall agree 6 Canal Plant Agreement History • 1964: Columbia River Treaty was ratified • River plants and Brilliant already existed on the Kootenay River • Regulation of Kootenay River flows by Duncan Dam (1967) and Libby Dam (1973) made the Kootenay Canal Plant economic • In 1972 BC Hydro, West Kootenay Power and Cominco entered into the Canal Plant Agreement “cooperate in the operation of their available storages and generating facilities in British Columbia for the purpose of obtaining optimum generation” 7 Kootenay River System An Engineer’s View Since KCL is more efficient than the River Plants, water is diverted to Kootenay Canal instead of through river plants.
    [Show full text]